| Literature DB >> 35969436 |
Bing Lin1,2, Jiaxiu Liu3, Wei He1,2, Haiying Pan1,2, Yingjie Ma1,2, Xiaoni Zhong1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly dependent on adherence, and one of the main reasons for poor adherence is forgetfulness. Therefore, it is important to explore how to remind users to take their medicine on time.Entities:
Keywords: HIV prevention; MSM; WeChat; adherence; men who have sex with men (MSM); message; oral PrEP; pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP); reminder; reminder system
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35969436 PMCID: PMC9412721 DOI: 10.2196/37936
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Internet Res ISSN: 1438-8871 Impact factor: 7.076
Figure 1Flowchart of the recruitment, survey, and follow-up of the study participants. MSM: men who have sex with men. PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Figure 2A: reminds users that they should take their medicine that day and B: reminds users that they should go for a follow-up visit.
Figure 3Explanation of adherence (initial adherence, early stage adherence, midterm adherence, late stage adherence, average adherence) and changes in adherence by period. PrEP: pre-exposure prophylaxis.
Differences in the baseline demographic characteristics, HIV-related characteristics, and substance use characteristics between the no-reminder group and reminder group in the men who have sex with men population (N=716).
| Variables | No-reminder group (n=372), n (%) | Reminder group (n=344), n (%) | |||
|
| .93 | ||||
|
| 18-30 | 165 (44.47) | 149 (43.31) |
| |
|
| 31-45 | 158 (42.59) | 151 (43.90) |
| |
|
| >45 | 48 (12.94) | 44 (12.79) |
| |
|
| .52 | ||||
|
| Urban | 254 (69.21) | 245 (71.43) |
| |
|
| Rural | 113(30.79) | 98 (28.57) |
| |
|
| .87 | ||||
|
| Junior high school and below | 27 (7.28) | 27 (7.85) |
| |
|
| High school | 84 (22.64) | 70 (20.35) |
| |
|
| College | 94 (25.34) | 93 (27.03) |
| |
|
| Undergraduate training or higher | 166 (44.74) | 154 (44.77) |
| |
|
| .54 | ||||
|
| Employed | 307 (82.75) | 275 (79.94) |
| |
|
| Internal student | 34 (9.16) | 40 (11.63) |
| |
|
| Jobless | 30 (8.09) | 29 (8.43) |
| |
|
| .45 | ||||
|
| Married | 50 (13.51) | 53 (15.50) |
| |
|
| Single | 320 (86.49) | 289 (84.50) |
| |
|
| .41 | ||||
|
| ≤¥1000 | 25 (6.79) | 22 (6.40) |
| |
|
| ¥1000-¥3000 | 59 (16.03) | 71 (20.64) |
| |
|
| ¥3000-¥5000 | 125 (33.97) | 104 (30.23) |
| |
|
| >¥5000 | 159 (43.21) | 147 (42.73) |
| |
|
| .78 | ||||
|
| Yes | 341 (92.41) | 317 (92.96) |
| |
|
| No | 28 (7.59) | 24 (7.04) |
| |
|
| .37 | ||||
|
| Yes | 267 (71.97) | 257 (74.93) |
| |
|
| No | 104 (28.03) | 86 (25.07) |
| |
|
| .50 | ||||
|
| 0 | 38 (10.33) | 27 (7.99) |
| |
|
| 1 | 204 (55.43) | 198 (58.58) |
| |
|
| ≥2 | 126 (34.24) | 113 (33.43) |
| |
|
| .65 | ||||
|
| Yes | 301 (83.84) | 279 (82.54) |
| |
|
| No | 58 (16.16) | 59 (17.46) |
| |
|
| .67 | ||||
|
| Yes | 250 (67.20) | 226 (65.70) |
| |
|
| No | 122 (32.80) | 118 (34.30) |
| |
|
| .79 | ||||
|
| High | 156 (42.05) | 148 (43.02) |
| |
|
| Low | 215 (57.95) | 196 (56.98) |
| |
|
| .08 | ||||
|
| Positive | 174 (46.77) | 156 (45.35) |
| |
|
| Neutral | 151 (40.59) | 160 (46.51) |
| |
|
| Negative | 47 (12.63) | 28 (8.14) |
| |
|
| .18 | ||||
|
| Yes | 18 (4.89) | 25 (3.73) |
| |
|
| No | 350 (95.11) | 317 (92.69) |
| |
|
| .83 | ||||
|
| Yes | 15 (4.05) | 15 (4.39) |
| |
|
| No | 355 (95.95) | 327 (95.61) |
| |
|
| .45 | ||||
|
| Yes | 217 (58.33) | 191 (55.52) |
| |
|
| No | 155 (41.67) | 153 (44.48) |
| |
aIndicates missing data.
Figure 4Trajectory plot of adherence at each time point in the men who have sex with men population in the no-reminder group and reminder group.
Differences in adherence at each time point among the men who have sex with men population in the no-reminder group and reminder group.
|
| No-reminder group | Reminder group | ||||||||
|
| n | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | n | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) |
| |||
| Initial adherence (N=716) | 372 | 0.75 (0.37) | 1.00 (0.64-1.00) | 344 | 0.72 (0.39) | 1.00 (0.47-1.00) | .48 | |||
|
| ||||||||||
|
| Early stage adherence (n=410) | 217 | 0.80 (0.33) | 1.00 (0.79-1.00) | 193 | 0.76 (0.37) | 1.00 (0.64-1.00) | .69 | ||
|
| Midterm adherence (n=193) | 100 | 0.77 (0.37) | 100 (0.68-1.00) | 93 | 0.78 (0.35) | 1.00 (0.79-1.00) | .96 | ||
|
| Late stage adherence (n=76) | 41 | 0.79 (0.31) | 1.00 (0.64-1.00) | 35 | 0.88 (0.23) | 1.00 (0.79-1.00) | .37 | ||
|
| Average adherence (n=410) | 217 | 0.79 (0.31) | 0.93 (0.72-1.00) | 193 | 0.78 (0.32) | 0.97 (0.64-1.00) | .82 | ||
aKruskal-Wallis test was used.
Figure 5Distribution of changes in adherence.
Multinomial logistic regression analysis of the changes in adherence at each time point after using the reminder system.
| Time point, variables | Improvement versus no change | Decline versus no change | |||||||
|
| Odds ratio (95% CI) | Odds ratio (95% CI) | |||||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Reminder group | 1.65 (1.01-2.70) | .04 | 0.93 (0.57-1.53) | .78 | ||||
|
| No-reminder group | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Reminder group | 1.43 (0.67-3.03) | .36 | 1.01 (0.46-2.24) | .98 | ||||
|
| No-reminder group | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Reminder group | 0.73 (0.23-2.26) | .58 | 0.16 (0.03-1.03) | .054 | ||||
|
| No-reminder group | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||
|
| |||||||||
|
| Reminder group | 1.82 (1.10-3.01) | .02 | 0.90 (0.55-1.48) | .67 | ||||
|
| No-reminder group | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||